A new article from the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) by Boston-area professor Terry Ann Knopf asserts that there was a "collective silence" from the vast array of local Boston television stations during the frenzied 2002 reporting of the Catholic Church sex abuse story.

However, research from TheMediaReport.com uncovers that CJR's claim is demonstrably false. In fact, Boston television stations actually played an essential role in creating the fevered animus against the Catholic Church that enveloped the Boston area before it soon spread to the rest of the country.

Just the facts, ma'am

CJR's Terry Ann Knopf

The Boston Globe happily picked up on Knopf's article with a piece of its own and naturally never questioned the premise of Knopf's article.

The Globe quoted Knopf as saying, "Boston's TV stations were largely derelict in their own duties" to report the Catholic Church abuse story.

"Largely derelict"? Not even close.

1. For starters: As far back as May of 1992, it was local station WBZ-TV – not the Boston Globe – which first exposed the story to the Boston area of the notorious priest Rev. James Porter, who molested many youngsters decades earlier before he exited the priesthood in the early 1970s.

Building upon WBZ's initial report, the Boston Globe would then publish nearly 60 articles on the Porter case, many on the front page, in the remaining eight months of 1992.

2. In June 1998, when the Catholic Church laicized the notorious John Geoghan from the priesthood, it was the lead story on every single major local TV newscast in Boston. Don't believe it? Watch this video (posted by SNAP leader Phil Saviano at YouTube).

3. In December 1999, when Geoghan was arraigned on criminal abuse charges, local TV covered the story exhaustively and included interviews with alleged victims. Stations would continue to report on the Geoghan case in ensuing years, even going as far as to follow Geoghan in public running errands.

4. In April 2001, when alleged victims of clergy abuse spoke in front of the Massachusetts legislature in support of clergy members being included within the mandated reporting law, local TV stations were there aplenty to give it prominent coverage.

5. On January 9, 2002, when Cardinal Bernard Law held a press conference to address the Boston Globe's reporting (which began only three days earlier), local television stations abruptly preempted regular programming to carry the event live. (Not convinced? Here's the video.)

6. In the early weeks and months of 2002, local TV stations broadcast numerous panel discussions about the Catholic abuse story (this and this, for example).

Our list is very abbreviated – quite far from exhaustive – but you get the idea.

The enormous story of Catholic Church sex abuse did not just emanate from the Boston Globe. It blossomed from all media at the time, including national television, talk radio, the Internet, and, yes, local television.

Comments

For 10 years worth of TV, that does not seem like much coverage at all. Also, 2002 is when the Globe really started to crank out hundreds of clergy sex abuse stories and it is going forward from 01/02 that I certainly noticed the comparative dearth of TV coverage.

Would it really matter if the cases were or were not reported, if it turns out the credible evidence against the perverts was true. Does the fact that a Boston area professor got it wrong in regards to the silence, make the perverts or their enablers less guilty. Again, seems like your cherry picking what you want to claim some kind of mistrial, or your poor, nasty church is being treated unfairly….. whimper, whimper, whimper. Nothing evens the score for all the cases thrown out because the church claims the statute of limitations. Guilty is guilty, and the church should be ashamed of such an excuse to get off the hook. Despicable!!!

You want us to concern ourselves with when the facts came out that Catholic clergy were using children as play toys for their own sick enjoyment ? It would have been nice if the world accepted the truth 10 years earlier I can only think of how many more abusive priests would have seen the inside of a courtroom and a 8×10 cell and how many more victims would have received the help they needed without being told there is nothing we can do because the SOL's have run out. The fact is it was not until 2002 society took a harder look at the Catholic church and its clergy and began to ask questions that pulled back the cover to decades of abuse by Catholic clergy and the criminal actions by the church itself. Yeah, those additional 10 years would have been nice but I will accept that delay knowing the facts have eventually came out . Abusive priests are going to prison, billions of dollars are being given to victims and the hierarchy must answer the questions never asked before. BETTER LATE THEN NEVER I say.

Dennis "billions of dollars given to victims"? Where? According to who? the church? You believe that? Less than 15% of U.S. victims have been compensated. The church and SNAP are waiting for victims to DIE OFF unpaid. That's the facts. This place is full of smoke; obfuscation and lies. Why can't religious people tell the truth, ever?

I believe to date an excess of 3 billion dollars has been paid to victims either in payouts or therapy to those abused. I admit not all victims/survivors have received a monetary award for damages suffered. Others like me have turned down offers because it came with rules and regulations but have therapy paid for myself, wife and daughter for the rest of my life. Something that far exceeds their offer and I don't have to keep my mouth shut about who abused me, how he abused me and where. To the day I take my last breath I will be a thorn in their side and for me that's PRICELESS.

In regard to LDB’s of the 29th at 905PM, I would say that once the ‘Globe’ began its full court press after January 2002, then it was on a very specific and targeted mission and no other media source would have been able to match the frequency of the ‘Globe’s focus unless it began to dedicate far more screen-time than was available in a half-hour news show.

Also, the media had certainly been noting the Catholic priest cases as far back as the mid-1980s. And the Porter and Shanley cases (dating back to the early 1990s) and the Geoghan case (one of the initial cases of the full court press period after January 2002) would have received a great deal of TV news coverage.

Thus, with the ‘Globe’ ‘cranking out’ “hundreds of clergy sex abuse stories” after January 2002, then – as I said – no other media sources would have been able to match that level of coverage, which was driven (as I noted on a thread back when ‘Spotlight’ was released) by the new editor’s need to “make a splash” and demonstrate that he was ‘the new gunslinger on Main Street’.

‘Dan’ (the 1st at 252AM) will now try his chops at current-events (his Scriptural chops already having clearly demonstrated themselves for what they are on the previous thread).

The point he tries to make (i.e. that it makes no difference if there were some problems with the reporting) hinges significantly on that subjunctive clause “if it turns out the credible evidence against the perverts was true”. That is a major point, and it is – alas – subjunctive, as ‘Dan’ notes with his “if”.

He will again try to deploy his “cherry-picking” bit (although one might consider his entire approach to Scripture to be precisely cherry-picking, and of a particularly uninformed nature). So in the Dan-verse here what we get is that if facts don’t support his preferred cartoons, then noticing those facts is mere “cherry-picking”.

He confuses the public-opinion and the legal forums in terms of his bit about ‘guilt’. But (as I have often explained at great length on this site) it was precisely an element of the Stampede that the media (especially the ‘Globe’ after January 2002) skewed its reporting so as to induce the public to imagine that the accused were guilty even before any trials – such few as there were – began.

And also, such skewed reporting actually served to ‘taint’ the jury pool – i.e. the public – even before jurors were chosen; which constitutes a neat form of jury-tampering that is not prosecutable. Which goes to my long-standing point about the synergy of the Stampede: when the public is tainted by media before a jury is even empanelled, then the chances of objective and accurate justice are significantly reduced.

And – I would also point out again – this skewed reporting so influenced public opinion that the tort attorneys saw their way clear to initiate those many civil lawsuit settlements that were built on the legal tactic known in the trade as “strike suits” (i.e. lawsuits): enterprising tort attorneys could surf the waves of public opinion and bring a lawsuit that, in light of the state of public opinion and thus the probable attitude of jurors and the cost of litigation, would induce a sued entity (and its Insurers) to settle with payouts rather than defend against the suit(s) at trial.

Excuses. excuses, and more excuses. They settled and paid out because they were guilty. They knew they could save money by just settling out of court, keeping much of the information from reaching the ears of their brainwashed sheep, protecting the church's "holy" status reputation and the anonymity of their child molesting perverts. Granting them the opportunity to continue to molest their sheep's children by the droves, while parading their piety as the only true, pure, moral authority church on earth. To this day, dealing with cases in house and still claiming those same virtues. Oh doth the "spotlight" of the Lord "shine in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." Let it shine! Let it shine! Let it shine!

If the church had any conscience, they would generously pay for every child's life they destroyed, Statute of Limitations or not. Just sell the Pieta. It's only one of your millions of idols and you can pay off all victims generously. None of your idol statues are going to do you a damn bit of good where your going anyway. I wonder how they'll all look covered in soot and ashes. Dan, servant of the Only True God

Given the histrionic carryings-on of ‘Dan’ in regard to the questioning assessment of his own claims, assertions, stories, accusations and interpretations, one might only smile at his huffing about the Church ‘whimpering’ about “being treated unfairly”.

And he demonstrates further his ignorance of the law by saying that the Church “claims the statute of limitations’ – which is a legal requirement that would be in effect whether the Church claimed it or not.

And from what we have seen of the quality of clerical sex-abuse trials (surely the Doe mess in Philadelphia is an outstanding example) then the Church was hardly ill-advised to avoid such legal swamps whenever allowable in law. (And surely, ‘Dan’s own numerous misadventures with the legal and police and judicial systems should have alerted him to such difficulties.)

You claim the Statute of Limitations would be a legal requirement anyway. Well then they could just say they were giving a donation to the victims, and they still would be ahead, with all the thievery they've done throughout the centuries.

Thus his simplistic and dismissive mantra that he crows here (“Guilty is guilty”) not only fails here, but also undermines his own protestations about “lies” and innocence in his own legal misadventures.

But this histrionic huffing and puffing – incoherent as it may be – then gives him the opportunity (so beloved of Abuseniks) to deliver his pronunciamento: “Despicable!”. Add a ‘harrrumph’ in there for the proper effect.

But then ‘Dan’s comment of the 1st at 302AM also undermines his own protestations (new readers may want to consult his comments on the immediately previous thread here): when things are made “evident” and “come to light” he is the first – if the “light” is uncongenial to his purposes and assertions – to seek to avoid any such “light” and claim “Lies, lies, lies” (with scream-caps and exclamation points).

I love and have no fear of the "light". That is why I am honest in what I have told you and anyone else. Because you're such a liar, doesn't make others the same, except in your peewee little brain. Have a God-gram for you, explained in more detail in the previous topic. Know how you appreciate the Lord's Word, so I didn't want you to miss it.

"I AM the Word of the world and it will always stay the same, and it does not matter how hard they try to change the Word, it cannot be done, ever." Thus saith the Lord

His entire point is based on the presumption that “Catholic clergy were using children as play toys for their own sick enjoyment” as if it were widespread and demonstrably a matter of some sort of “rape culture” within the Church or – as some would put it – the only reason and purpose of the Church for centuries or millennia.

And that is precisely the point I (for one) have objected-to. There can be no doubt that some priests failed profoundly and must be held to consequences, and that the Church – as it has – had to take stronger corrective steps.

But a) to apply the heightened sensitivities of one cultural era to another cultural era and b) to ignore the grossly skewing effects of the synergy I call the Stampede, is not conceptually legitimate and at this point, as we see, is reduced to going over old cases (that in many instances were dubious even when their originating allegations were first lodged).

He then slyly tries to imply that if it were not for the statute of limitations (and “the world” failing to insist upon it) then “many more priests would have seen the inside of a courtroom” – which, given what we have seen of clerical sex-abuse trials is rather thin gruel indeed.

And he even more slyly tries to imply that such priests would also have “seen the inside … of an 8×10 cell”, thus manipulating us to presume that they would have been guilty. But again, given what we have seen of clerical sex-abuse trials this is rather thin gruel indeed.

Whether the commenter here – familiar as he is with the ins and outs of disability cases (of which the Stampede cases are surely a variant) – might be hoping for a local lifting of the Statutes of Limitations to enable a further claim in regard to sexual-abuse by clerics … is as it perhaps might be.

But the slyly manipulative presumption that there were or are many more genuine victims remains a speculation, and a convenient one for Abuseniks of any stripe. Surely, the number of ‘current’ as well as ‘historical’ allegations against priests has fallen off tremendously.

And while it may legitimately be postulated that it was “not until 2002” that “society took a harder look at the Catholic church”, yet the results of that “look” clearly indicate that it may have been ‘hard’ but – under the deranging influences of the Stampede – it was not an accurate “look”.

He then riffs on further to the effect that he is at least happy that now “the facts have come out”, but once again, we are being manipulated into presuming that the ‘reporting’ we have seen is ‘facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts’ – and that is demonstrably not a tenable assertion, as we are increasingly discovering with the assorted (and apparently inherent) troubles with so very many of the few clerical abuse trials that have taken place.

He is “willing to be patient”, he says – and interestingly enough indeed.

And he then, curiously enough, takes up the point about “billions of dollars … being given to victims” (their genuineness also presumed here) and so on. He may reveal more than he wishes with his crowing declaration about “Better late than never” (scream caps omitted).

The Ball Must Be Kept Rolling, as I have said before about the Abusenik agenda and its assorted sub-objectives.

Anyone reading this crap for the first time: P is a smoke blower who monopolizes with personal attacks any conversation here. He represents the complete lack of morality in the Catholic church of today. The sane have left the church and Publion is what has been left behind.

As far as I can see the rest of the posters here are all blowing smoke too. Running on tangents and ignoring the simple fact that less than 15% of it's sex abuse victims have been compensated in the U.S. by this "church".

In a Patheos blog called the friendly atheist dated 11/4/15 states the catholic church has paid $3,994,797,060.10 as a result of the sex abuse scandals. According to research done by NCR Jack and Diane Ruhl the amount is estimated at $4 billion dollars and warn us this is an underestimate since they are unaware of how much has been spent on victim therapy. . On top of that , you must consider all the money the church has lost through donations because a lack of attendance estimated at another $2.3 to $3 billion dollars a year.

New readers alert. Publion HOGS any chances for a decent dialog here. He's a paid smoke blower. Wear your gas masks. The church doesn't want you to know that it has done next to nothing compensating the children it raped. This place exists to pretend none of us victims are telling the truth about our rapes. It's here to pretend that the real victim in all this is not it's raped children but the church itself. This is their much self heralded morality at work.

On the 1st at 1039AM JR – as he so loves to do – delivers a pronunciamento that has absolutely no backing through any sort of explanation or demonstration.

Why would it be “absurd” for TMR to point out the problems with the Columbia School of Journalism article? Has TMR misquoted the article? If so, where has TMR misquoted? Has TMR drawn conclusions from or about the article that are not supported by the text of the article or the quotations presented from the article? If so, where?

As ever, all this is too much thinking for JR to handle, and he is happy to simply bray “absurd” and call it a good day’s work.

Once again – as we also saw on the previous thread with his extended repetitive post “and on and on” – he appears agitated by the material but can’t seem to explain why. So he will now simply demand that I “shut up” (scream-caps, exclamation points, and repetition omitted). How wise the torties were not to put themselves in a position where he would have to be put on the stand.

And in regard to all the points I raised? It’s all merely “smoke blowing” (scream-caps omitted). This resembles closely ‘Dan’s preferred evasion and escape: that whatever he doesn’t like is “lies” (scream-caps, exclamation points, and repletion omitted).

And in between the scream-caps he also manages to slip in – had you been waitttttingggg forrr ittt? – another pronunciamento to the effect that I “have nothing intelligent to say”. Readers may consider the reliability of JR in assessing intelligent material.

But there is something new in his second paragraph: he now broadcasts to “anyone reading this crap for the first time” … and repeats a) his “smoke-blower” bit, b) his “monopolizes” the conversation bit, and c) his “personal attacks” bit (as in: anyone who questions JR is making a “personal attack”, and d) his “lack of morality” bit (as in: anyone who questions his material lacks morality).

Four of his favorite evasive gambits in two sentences. Not a bad performance, in its way.

And – had you been waittttingggg forrrrr ittttt? – he finishes off with an epithet against both the Church and myself. Neato.

And after the dust settles, readers may note that he has not made a single substantive comment to back up any of it at all.

Let me try an “alert” of my own: JR’s personal definition of “dialog” is that he is never questioned and that he is only agreed-with. Anything else is – as noted above – a “personal attack” and he will respond with a range of juvenile, often scatological, epithets.

Because – doncha see? – anyone who doth make a “personal attack” by questioning his material deserves nothing more than juvenile, often scatological epithet.

But otherwise, he would be a competent and insightful and mature commenter.

But as it is, when he is ‘victimized’ (or ‘re-victimized’) by “personal attack” (as he defines it; see immediately above) then he is clearly justified in putting up the stuff he puts up … as if it were a competent response. And you’d better not say that you’ve noticed he doesn’t make competent responses because then you too will be making a “personal attack” on him.

He will then deploy exaggeration to claim that this site “exists to pretend none of us [the sly self-advertisement] victims are telling the truth about our rapes”. What is actually the case is that a) none of the allegations we have had a chance to examine here have provided credible demonstration of their veracity and b) there exists – for a number of reasons including i) the Stampede dynamics and ii) the aforesaid dubiousness of the allegations presented here – no small probability of deception in the lodging of allegations under those circumstances. (A point that is further explicated at great length and with demonstrated examples in the article that is the basis for the immediately following thread on this site, about the Joann Wypijewski-Counterpunch piece.)

I would also point out that this Columbia Journalism Review article clearly reveals – as I noted when the ‘Spotlight’ film was first discussed here – the film as a product playing upon that vital Stampede synergy that involved the media.

Following in the footsteps of other ‘journalism’-friendly films such as the Woodward-Bernstein film about the heroic journalists of the Nixon era (who, it turns out, mostly merely acted as stenographers for the secret leaker ‘Deep Throat’), the ‘Spotlight’ film almost guaranteed itself a strongly friendly journalistic reception.

After all, this is a film about heroic and truthy journalists risking all to confront the utter monstrosity (as the script necessarily requires) of the Church.

What employed journalist was going to note any problems with this film?

I would refer readers to an op-ed piece in the New York Post of Tuesday, March 1st (page 23 in the print edition) entitled “Scaring Parents Silly” by Lenore Skenazy (who is not a professionally employed journalist but rather an author).

She raises another interesting and relevant angle on the ‘Spotlight’ film: (not only journalists but) Hollywood and the Academy had to award the film at the Oscars.

Since the Academy and the ‘industry’ in Hollywood was on the hook for its alleged ‘racism’, then they had to find some other moral high-ground, and they chose “rape”. Viewers of the Oscar ceremonies may recall that there was a) Vice-President Biden himself on hand to speak about “campus rape”; b) there was also a song concerning rape; c) there was a group described as “young rape survivors” (“on stage with their stories written on their wrists – eerily reminiscent of Holocaust tattoos” – as Skenazy notes); d) Brie Larsen was awarded Best-Actress for her role in a film entitled “Room” which involved a rape; and e) there were numerous commercials for a new ABC TV series entitled “The Family” about an abducted child.

I didn't read anywhere in the article, where "Hollywood and the Academy had to award the film at the Oscars". Oh! That's your worthless opinion? We've seen enough of your worthless opinions, which usually rate more as "lies or excuses". You would definitely win an Oscar in that category.

You don’t have to be an inveterate, decades-long viewer of Oscar ceremonies to realize that this was highly unusual and you might even imagine that this was a highly-scripted ‘full court press’ specifically written-into the Oscar ceremony (which by amazing coincidence awarded ‘Spotlight’, a film about journalists heroically confronting rape – alleged or genuine, it doesn’t say – perpetrated by priests).

But why would Hollywood go to such (obvious) lengths?

Skenazy – quoting another author, Nancy McDermott – says that in light of the ‘racism’ problem Hollywood is facing, then “the only way the academy could get back any moral authority was to fixate on child abuse”.

And I would add: oh-so-liberal Hollywood could simultaneously make an implicit pitch for the Democrats in a hugely-contested election cycle by showcasing (Biden figures in here especially) that Party’s focus on rape issues.

So – just as we saw with the initial roll-out of the ‘Spotlight’ movie a few months ago (and discussed at length on this site at that time) – we see again the carefully-constructed ‘full court press’, involving media and journalists and Hollywood’s well-oiled scripting and PR machinery.

And – of course and as was noted back then – precisely not involving ‘victims’ any more than was absolutely necessary, and keeping them at arm’s length so that their tales and mood would not ‘bring down’ the well-employed celebrants who were self-celebrating their heroic truthiness.

But given what we have seen here of the Stampede, synergizing powerful interests including politicians, well-heeled tort attorneys (a noted interest group heavily involved in lobbying for itself), media and journalists … then who can be surprised, really, at such an intricate and interlocking set of performance-events?

I ignore the bull. . NCR's a lying sack o"shit. I would trust them as far as I would trust the biggest smoke blower here. The question, Dennis, is why do you believe them? Why would you believe any Catholic on this subject? They are proven liars and child rapers yet they're going to tell you the truth about how much money's been paid out. If the insurance companies are paying half the settlements and according to NCR the church has laid out 4 billion $ that means $8 billion dollars have been paid to U.S. victims. Have you seen such massive settlements in the U.S.? Neither has anyone else.

Hello and thank you for your brave detailing of what to my eyes seems the gross abuse in our culture of sexual abuse victims.. who are mostly uttterly ignored, and too the wildly disproportionate isolation of the Catholic church as the abuser par excellence in a western world where the sexual abuse of minors was the norm. And so too the ignoring of the efforts of the church to treat offenders using the same secular resources used by the Dept of Justice and while ignoring the public schools systems entirely shows that most media and the culture has really no interest at all in the sexual abuse of minors unless a priest can be found to pin it on. Media reports of Charal Shakeshaft's study in California proved this beyond any doubt. By all means let the church rightly suffer for the ills she is responsible for, but what we see in the west generally is something a lot sicker. Bigotry trumps abused kids in this culture. Keep up the excellent work which will at least make it likelier that westerners might face this duplicity at long last.

I'm not sure what culture your referring to, but I'm of the belief that child molesters, especially repeat offenders should be put in prison and left to rot there. They are a danger to society and to our children. The church found out that you cannot rehabilitate them. Problem is that child molesters and pedophiles shouldn't have been in a church that claims Godliness in the first place. The fact that they thought they could conceal their malfeasance and get away with it, is proof that they are not God's church. They deserve all the scrutiny they get and then some. If they used the "same secular resources used by the Dept of Justice", then where are all the imprisoned priests and hierarchy of the church. I've also had the chance to witness the workings of our Justice System and found it to be totally unjust and corrupt in many ways. "Power corrupts and absolute 'Power' corrupts absolutely." I found that catholic cops and catholic judges have no conscience and will do all in their power to back their corrupt cult and their false accusations, to the detriment of justice and innocent victims, everywhere. The whole system needs a complete overhaul, and most of that will have to come apparently from the hand of God. Birds of a feather flock, (and back each other), together. Despicable, period. And it gets tiring to hear the Catholic Stampede so willing to blame the media, unless they can use the media to promote their disgusting agenda.

"what we see in the west generally is something a lot sicker" I don't know what part of the west you're from, but there has been nothing "sicker" than what has transpired from the great religion and "cult" of the moral authority, in every diocese, city, state, country and continent, around the globe. Time to wake up to reality and make right on your many wrongs, "catholic cult".

Dennis have you learned nothing. Founding a fake committee or news source is what the church does. It creates public opinion. You've TMR. Do you actually think it and Cipriano arn't planted. You think they grew naturally? From what Matrix? They sprang like mushrooms over night. The question is which little Catholic fairy spread the spores? Friendly Atheist is a title who knows it's funding. You can surely see that a wave of attacks against the very concept of church victims being real is what's happening here. Newsweek; Cipriano and the woman reporter in the next TMR post. All are fired up. It takes money to fire something up in this world. Do you wonder where the money comes from? The engine is being reved up here but by who? What's next? I can hardly wait. Another lone reporter will find new evidence about a fraud and victims will be made bad. The PR show is underway. There is no blow you, the oppressor, won't inflict. And all because we told the truth.

I have no "reading comprehension" problem. You give your "worthless opinion" based on someone elses worthless assessment, "the only way the academy could get back any 'moral authority' was to fixate on child abuse". Show me proof that the academy "had to" regain any "moral authority", when they surely aren't gonna represent my idea of any "moral authority", any more than your disgusting cult can claim to be a moral authority. I believe the academy at least knows that they're not a moral authority, just take a look at how the women of Hollywood dress. When will the church come to grips with the fact that they are not the true church or "moral authority", bunch of pedophile creeps. servant

Then (the 3rd at 1033AM) he will further demonstrate his lack of psychological chops – and who can be surprised, since he has already informed us that (a, the, some, any, his) ‘god’ had told him not to read books?

The current state of psychological assessment is that genuine pedophiles (perhaps he would want to check the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for the specific clinical definition) are not ‘curable’ by any means currently known.

However there is no clinical diagnostic category of “child molesters” (or “repeat” child molesters). The term ‘child molester’ is not a clinical term but rather a media-contrived term that has passed into common parlance. But the term itself is hugely unreliable since ‘molesting’ can cover a broad range of actions that can be variously sourced or seated in the patient and thus can be variously treated.

Once again, ‘Dan’s substitution of his personally-preferred cartoons for any actual knowledge is evident.

I don't believe God ever said I could not read any books, so unless you can show me that statement, then we'll just have to chalk it up to more of your "lies". Your "mental institution" episodes apparently have helped you with your "psychological assessments" and "clinical diagnostic[s]" chops, but maybe that knowledge would be better left for your doctors, rather than peewee psychos.

You claim, "child molester is not a clinical term but rather a media-contrived term- hugely unreliable since 'molesting' can cover a broad range of actions." Who says it's a 'media-contrived term"? Oh, is that in the peewee dictionary of nonsense. I chose it for the legal definition- Child molestation is a crime involving a range of indecents or sexual activities between an adult and a child, usually under the age of 14. In psychiatric terms, these acts are sometimes known as pedophilia. I purposely chose the words to broadly cover all your "cults" perversions and disgusting sicknesses. You grasp at straws, claiming it to be "media-contrived" and "hugely unreliable", thinking your manipulations and lies will convince some of your dumb sheep that you know what your talking about. Sadly your material isn't any more accurate than your interpretation of Scripture. So keep on mocking and lying. servant

Thus the Church did not “find out that you cannot rehabilitate them” since – to the extent that this “them” refers to ‘repeat child molesters’ – there is no basis for his assertion that they cannot be rehabilitated.

We then see a revenant of the old fundamentalist idea of “Godliness”, i.e. that some people are ‘Godly’ and others aren’t – which is certainly not a Catholic doctrine. The Church has never claimed that any persons are ‘Godly’ in that sense; all are sinners and capable of sin – from popes to laity.

Perhaps the Church realized – on top of the Scriptural and especially New Testament theology – that such a doctrine of “Godliness” would open the door for anybody sufficiently deranged to suddenly a) proclaim themselves ‘Godly’ and on that basis even b) denounce one or many others as being ‘un-Godly’.

You think your church doesn't claim to be Godly, when corrupt and perverted popes, bishops and priests claim to be another Christ on earth. Glad it's not a "[c]atholic doctrine", because what I have witnessed from you and many other lying catholics and clergy, are some of the most ungodly creeps I've ever met or conversed with. I've met atheists holier than thou, and that's no lie. I agree with you, "all are sinners and capable of sin", but I have never run into as big a group of greedy, lying, threatening, obscene perverts, and hypocrits, even showing those traits after walking out of their heathen masses. servant observant, Dan

P.S. And what would your church know about "Godliness" when they don't know or follow "Scripture [or] New Testament theology". Guess it was my serve again.

God-gram for p- "How they put up a front in church, and when they come out, they're the most deceitful liars that ever lived on earth." Thus saith the Lord….. Got this one 2/29/16 and realized it fit well with my previous material.

We get here merely more demonstrations of ‘Dan’s (conveniently) inaccurate comprehension of the Church.

First, we get an instance of that fundamentalist-y “Godly”, as if any human beings could claim to participate directly in the competence or purity of God (which, nicely, is pretty much ‘Dan’s conception of himself – or Himself).

Second, the Pope is considered in Catholicism as the Vicar of Christ on earth, but not “another Christ”. The doctrine then applies – to lesser degrees, one might put it – to Bishops and priests. But in no case is any ordained or consecrated human being considered to be directly and fully participant in the competence or purity of God the Father or Christ the Son. And all human beings – without regard to ecclesial status – are most surely considered to be, as are all human beings, sinners and capable of sin.

We then get his signature reference back to the staffers of that Catholic school whose students he chose to involve himself with across the fence in one of his ‘Servant’ misadventures: they were “lying” – apparently in regard to their concern that he was unhinged, rather than merely proclaiming the content of his god-grams to the students, with a degree of intensity and perhaps aggressiveness that can only be imagined from some of his more florid performances on this site.

Then he engages in various bits of epithetical riffing, concluding that sequence by complimenting himself as being “observant” – which, as I have often said, does not at all appear to be an accurate characterization, especially in regard to himself (or Himself).

And he concludes by complimenting himself (or Himself) – as contrasted with the Church – as not being ignorant of non-compliant with “Scripture” and “New Testament theology” (which, as we recall, he (or He) gets directly from God without the necessity of reading books.

Readers may consider ‘Dan’s ‘insight’ of the 4th at 1217AM as they may. The quotation – as may not be clear from his post here – is from himself (or Himself) although he (or He) appears to consider it as qualifying for that “Thus saith the Lord” … and readers may further consider as they may.

He opens – as so very often – with a couple of epithets, bringing us back to that table in the back of the school cafeteria.

Then he tosses in his old “sociopath” bit, once again oblivious to the danger of its recoil.

Just what “argument” I “make up” that he has “never made” is anybody’s guess. And the rest of that paragraph – as so often – trails off into some incoherent bits that wrestle with whatever images hover over him as he types his stuff. Which, all things considered, isn’t really so “Amazing!” at all.

He then works to reinforce the (Victimist-required) image of a 16-year old as a child. A 16 year-old may indeed be legally a minor, but considering that in that era one could in some States get a permit to drive a car and was only a year away from being eligible to volunteer for the military (once he turned 18) then clearly JR is over-relying on the ‘child’ bit. A toddler or a ten-year-old he most certainly was not.

Thus then again the (Victimist-required) “shattered” bit. And we are once again into the question of the pre-existence of characteristics in relation to any claimed consequences of allegedly being grabbed in the groin.

And then that paragraph concludes by attempting to imply that I don’t “acknowledge any victims”. As I have said on several occasions here, when I come across a demonstrably genuine victim, I will be sure to acknowledge that. And since he was not present at any other ‘victim’s (fill in the blank: rape, statutory rape, abuse, molestation) then one still wonders how he is so sure he has encountered any.

As to his exaggeration to the effect that “We’re [meaning ‘victims’] all liars and would happily fxxk up an innocent persons reputation for money” (sic) … readers may consider that as they will.

But the final epithetical bit is a sly one – almost too sly for JR’s demonstrated chops: I – in his construction here – apparently do indeed ‘fxxk up’ “an innocent persons” (i.e. himself) “for money” (i.e. that I am being paid to comment here).

But the only mistake of relevance here is one that I have not made: I have not confused genuine victims with persons quite probably otherwise classifiable.

And yet – with no apparent thought as to the effect of declaring it in regard to his own position here – he reports that his “chance to witness” (i.e. those misadventures with the police and the courts) the “workings of our Justice System” has demonstrated to his satisfaction that the system is “totally unjust and corrupt in many ways”. (“Totally” and “in many ways” are incoherent here, as they are deployed together to describe the same entity.)

He would like us merely to apply this insight to the claimed injustices of his own misadventures, but there is no reason why it cannot also be applied to the system as it works and has been working under the influence of the Stampede, as I have often and at length explained.

Moral integrity coming from a douche bag like you? You have all the moral integrity of the Catholic church. Which is just like having none at all.

You must be proud. A sociopath talking "moral integrity". Any idea what those words mean? Nope I didn't think you did.

Go and sin no more!

Who ever said I wouldn't answer questions? You make up an argument for me that I've never made. Let's see SNAP makes up victims issues and you make up my issues. You folks do it for us all. It's all church all the time and all lies. Speaking for victims. Amazing!

And I was a very young 16 year old. Butchy boy Malcolm may have seen himself as a man at 16; but I didn't see my self like that. I was shattered. And that's not the half of it. But why acknowledge any victims? Let alone those of us who post here.

We're all liars and would happily fuck up an innocent persons reputation for money.

He now claims – after I had pointed out that he had missed the relevant point I made from the text of the article – that he has “no ‘reading comprehension’ problem”.

Because – doncha see? – he apparently saw the material but didn’t need to pay any attention to it because it was simply my “’worthless opinion’ based on someone elses worthless assessment” (sic) and – doncha see? – he needn’t pay any attention to such “worthless opinion” because – doncha see? – he already has all he needs to know (from his god-grams, doncha see?) in the first place.

This is the level of mentation we are dealing with here. Which the Stampede invited and upon which it relies.

Well, congratulations are in order for you, publyin'! This is definitely the best "assessment" you've made in regards to your "worthless opinion" and your "worthless assessment" of another catholic's "worthless assessment". And yes, I do have all I need to know from God's- [G]od-grams, but don't leave out Holy Spirit inspired Bible Scripture. And I appreciate the complement that my "level of mentation" is spot on, and maybe that's due to the fact that I respect the Creator, rather than think I'll get away with mocking Him or His chosen.

He then tries to go JR’s “proof” route and wants “proof” that the opinion of the author I quoted is accurate. He is clearly unfamiliar with the process of building a case through exchange and assessment so I’ll walk him through it.

That is her opinion (as is all of his material, although he dwells in the cartoon fantasy that his material is not “opinion” but is rather the directly-inspired Word, Thought, and Will of God).

We consider a) the utter strangeness of an Oscar ceremony including so many uncharacteristic inclusions as the various ‘rape’-themed bits already discussed; then we consider b) the problem that Hollywood and the ceremony had been having with ‘racism’ issues; then we consider c) the well-known left-leaning nature of Hollywood generally and d) the context of a highly-contested election year.

And on the basis of all those elements, readers then can consider the probability and accuracy of the Skenazy quotation from McDermott.

This process is not one ‘Dan’ is familiar with, since he simply delivers his cartoon ‘opinions’ (and that is all they are) as if – as I have said – they are not his opinions at all but rather the directly-inspired Word, Thought, and Will of God.

And ditto then as to his opinion as to what he doth “believe” about the academy – it’s an “opinion”, and perhaps closer to “worthless” than he would care to imagine.

You're "building a case through exchange and assessment" is as lame and weak as you and all your material. Maybe you should try "building a case" based on truth instead of insinuations, excuses and lies, but I don't think your capable of such. And now you think God's "directly-inspired Word, Thought, and Will of God is some "cartoon fantasy". You better beware of your blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, Mr. Mocker. servant

He can’t recall ever having said that God didn’t want him to read books. In his comment of the 31st of January at 1256AM he said “And I find there is no need to read other books once you've found and understood "The Greatest Story Ever Told". I prefer to spend my free time rollerblading, hiking and sharing my life and love with others.”.

Had God not told him to go outside and play since there was no need to read books? Or is this just ‘Dan’s adult decision … not to read books since they are unnecessary?

He then apparently seeks to imply that I have also had “’mental institution’ episodes” – and that is not accurate (his own of course, are reported to us by ‘Dan’ himself).

And again with the queasy child-focused “peewee” bit, which seems a fixed characteristic in his thinking and imagining.

So you found my quote, "And I find there is no need to read other books once you've found and understood "The Greatest Story Ever Told" (That would be the Bible, for the slow learner, publiar). The key words in this sentence would be, "I find there is no need". In other words, I was absolutely right in claiming I never said God demanded that I read no other books. Again, we can chalk that up to another of your many lies. Boy, I feel like I'm teaching a first grader, that I might have to hold back a grade. Maybe in kindergarten you'll be able to "go outside and play", seeing that you have a "ominous fascination" with childish and immature fairy tales (i.e. schoolyard fantasies).

P.S. And I assume you've forgotten that your claims of my being in "mental institution[s]" was just another of your lies.

Then, having just recently discovered the mimicry of competent adult thinking, he tries it again here: he wants proof that “child molester is not a clinical term but rather a media-contrived term”. He can look in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual and he will discover that there is no such diagnosis. He seems not to realize that such ‘knowledge’ as he imagines himself to possess – not coming from books – actually comes from the media-soused surround, from which he picks his preferred bits like a pack-rat.

He then claims – after another deployment of that queasy “peewee” – that he was working with the term “child molestation” as a legal definition, thus as a crime. But he had mentioned it in terms of “rehabilitation” and that creates a psychological context that requires a psychological definition.

And he would then have to realize that the legal definition also doesn’t discuss rehabilitation, which is the context in which he originally raised the point.

He then riffs further, tossing in his usual points about “cults” and Catholics and so on.

And again that somewhat ominous fascination with “perversions and disgusting sicknesses”, which – through the wonders of clinical projection – offer some indication of just what is actually going on, under the guise of proclaiming the Word of God.

I leave it to psychotics to figure out the "psychological context that requires a psychological definition", so you remember to research that and I'll make it a point to ignore it. I prefer God to assist me in assessing the psychos in this world. Speaking of such, you claim I have a "somewhat ominous fascination with 'perversions and disgusting sicknesses'." That's pretty comical, when it's your abusive, pedophile, and child molesting hierarchy whose guilty of doing the nasty, dirty deeds. And I must say your one sick bastard yourself for attempting to pin that on me with your "wonders of clinical projection." servant of the Word of God

Publyin' claims I have an "inaccurate comprehension of the church". I'm totally aware of the pope being wrongly titled "Vicar of Christ", meaning substitute for Christ. And your grasping at straws, doesn't think that's close enough to be also considered "another Christ". After all he's only a falsely glorified bishop. And what does Christ say about giving people titles?

"But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your 'servant'. Whoever exalts himselt shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted." Matthew 23;9-12 And just about all of Matthew 23 describes the failures of your heathen cult. Now what are you going to claim and twist? That these aren't Christ's words, when they, like what you disrespectfully call [G]od-grams are most definitely, THUS SAITH THE LORD.

And I love that you claim I'm wrong about calling the pope "another Christ", and yet you don't deny, along with bishops and priests, that they're all perverts (and at the very least perverters of truth). At least I can say you know some things to be the truth. "Hilariass". Talk about, "Straining out a gnat but swallowing a camel." MT 23: 24 "You blind guides."

Catholics beware of these people who put themselves on pedestals and claim they're the one who can teach and interpret Scripture for you. Read the Bible and you'll find God will assist you in finding who is really is telling you the truth and who is the liar. servant

P.S. I'm glad you realize that no one in your church can be considered "Godly", because liars, idolaters and perverts are far from any "purity of God". You can depend on your "Queen of Heaven" for your hope and mercy, and I'll rest in Christ, not any other false christs!!!

Malcolm Harris- Might want to check out my post here at 11:10 am. May help you understand just what type of titles would be considered "grandiose" and the title God prefers us to take as "servant". "Servant of the Almighty" would still be a title of humility and have no greater meaning than calling myselt "servant", other than saying who I am servant to. Hope that's of some help.

I’ll go down the pile of ‘Dan’s new comments in the order they appear on the site.

On the 5th at 607PM ‘Dan’ merely affirms his basic cartoon approach and appears quite proud of his “level of mentation” – and readers may consider it as they will.

If he doesn’t agree with material or if it isn’t congruent with his personal cartoons, then it’s “worthless” while his own stuff – doncha know? – is the genuine Word, Thought and Will of God (while also awarding himself the status of “His chosen”.

As readers may have inferred, my purpose here is to demonstrate by drawing-them-out just how Abuseniks and other Stampede-y types think and process information. And the Stampede gave them a platform.

What we see here is the clear demonstration of the cartoon-dependent mind’s attitude toward “exchange and assessment” : it is “lame and weak”.

The cartoon-dependent seem to find some sort of (faux) sense of strength, masculinity, competence and power by simply creating their own cartoons and blast-faxing them all around.

He then also demonstrates – for good measure – his conflation of his own material with the actual Word, Thought and Will of God. It ‘Dan’s own material that is the “cartoon fantasy”. Although – who can be surprised? – the distinction is lost on him. And in his case, necessarily so.

As I had said above on the 5th at 1049AM, either he had avoided books as the result of instructions of his god-grams or else he had made his own choice not to read books (other than his favorite version of the Bible).

Apparently – if his claim in this 640PM comment is to be believed – he made the choice himself. Fine and dandy then. But yet he insists on tossing around material on subjects about which he is greatly misinformed (above and beyond his Biblical material, whose only redeeming quality as he deploys it is that it is accurately transcribed … most of the time).

He then tosses in an epithetical bit to the effect that he feels “he is teaching a first grader”. Again with the focus on small children – one wonders what age and grade the children were whom he accosted at the schoolyard fence.

The more he goes on, the more I see why the staffers were concerned; and also the police and the judge(s) those six times he was jailed and sent for psychiatric observation by a court. (About which more below.)

In his “P.S” he then presumes that I’ve “forgotten that [my] claims as to [his] being in ‘mental institution[s]’ was just another of [my] lies”.

And yet again I refer readers to my comment of the 31st of January at 428PM, which quotes ‘Dan’s of the 23rd of November, 2015, at 1219PM:

“I'm speaking from experience because Catholic clergy and laity have laid upon me terrible accusations that were completely false. They lied and claimed I wanted to kill them. Said I trespassed when I didn't. Threatened me and then put that charge on me. Four thug cowards, of the church of my youth, jumped me from behind because I had a beautiful, prophetic message to the school children. Two weeks later reported this to the vacationing principle, and she said the thugs were accusing me of saying dirty things to the children. Lies, on top of lies, backed by more lies. Been called by church clergy and members, Satan, devil, crazy, pervert, child molester, threatened and cursed several times and called every other rotten, vulgar name in the book. On false accusations, been thrown in jail 6 times and in mental institutions 6 more times times. Paid restitution for accusations that were absolute lies and forced to plead guilty if I didn't want to spend more jail time. My only crime was speaking to lost souls about the bible and speaking out about the crimes of the church and exposing them.”

Thus readers may consider the quality of ‘Dan’s assertions, declamations, and claims of truthiness.

I wasn't able to find which article this was posted in, but will take your word for it, that that's the exact quote. If so, I do apologize for my mistakingly writing "mental institution", because I have never been in a "mental institution". I looked on google maps and have never been in any of the listed mental institutions in California or anywhere else. Sorry again, and I'll remove that lie from your list of many other lies. By the way, was "times times" my mistake or yours. Shows we all make mistakes. I stand by everything else I said in this paragraph, and that's the reason that it's so unfair for you to make claims of accosting or haranging, when they are so far from the truth, unless describing the threats, obscenities and lies of your cult of thugs. I also notice you're stepping up the mocking in almost every post. Hope that works out well for you.

This statement is also missing the fact that my younger sister called the msgr. of the church and he said, "Dan said nothing bad, let alone obscene to the children." So why don't you grow up and stop your nonsense, little peewee. Also, quit with your childish cartoons, building blocks, and immature berating and someone might think you have some false "sense of strength, masculinity, competence and power" and stop calling you little peewee. Until then, if the shoe fits you're gonna have to wear it. servant

Found my post from 11/23/15 @ 12:19, and saw my mistake of repeating "times" twice. I must have been on those anti-depressants and hallucinogens that I never was given at the "mental institutions" that I was never in. Because I was never "convicted or "jailed" or saw a "judge" because I never "accosted or haranged" any children at the schoolyard. Enough of your schoolyard fantasies.

As we have seen with another noted Abusenik commenter here, a person largely (and it would appear admittedly) lacking in psychological knowledge does seem to have one or two psychiatric diagnostic bits in the 3×5 epithet file.

In this case, ‘Dan’ seems to be familiar with the term “psychotics”. As I had previously said, it would seem probable that they gleaned their psychiatric bits not through any specific study, but rather through their own unhappy experiences on the far side of a clinical desk.

He will then – had you been waittttingggg forrrr itttt? – fall back on (a, the, some, any, his) version of ‘god’ while revealing that in his considered assessment the “psychos” are out there in “this world”.

The observation as to his fixation on “perversions and disgusting sicknesses” arises from his own material here and readers may consider it as they will.

But he will attempt to neutralize that problem for himself by opining that it is I who am “one sick bxxtard”. And we may perhaps presume that this bit is from ‘Dan’ and not from (a, the, some, any, his) ‘god’ – although perhaps his ‘god’ is indeed capable of such descent into scatological epithet.

His grasping at the definition of ‘vicar’ is, as applied to the stated doctrine of the Church, eccentric and inaccurate – thus his “inaccurate comprehension of the church” (sic). And even in its definition, a “substitute” is not to be mistaken for the real McCoy, as it were, so his effort here fails on that score as well.

And even he seems to be aware of that on some level, since in his immediately following sentence he has to appeal to what a reader might “think” about his little cartoon-construction here being “close enough”. It may be “close enough” for his own cartoon’s purposes, but it is clearly – and demonstrated by his own effort in this sentence – not definitive (let alone accurate) in any way whatsoever.

You say by definition, " 'substitute' is not to be mistaken for the real McCoy". So it would be better if we call them fake Christs instead of "another Christ". I like it, because it fits better with your fake church and it's false teachings. You forgot to mock in that one.

He then tosses up a bunch more pericopes. He appears to have missed the one about Peter being the rock upon which Christ would build his Church. But like all packrats, he only takes what would be useful to his purposes. And would the rest be “worthless”?

The key question – as ‘Dan’ viscerally avoids it like a vampire recoiling from holy water – is not whether his pericopes are the words of Scripture but rather whether they apply to the instance under discussion.

You talk about incoherence. What does Peter have to do with my Bible quote, especially when your church was started some 300 years later, and doesn't come close to having anything to do with Peter's teaching or God's for that matter. Funny you catholics calling others "rats" or "packrats" when your led by two of the biggest "RAT- zingers (devil's food) to walk the earth, let alone the rest of your hierarchy of RATS. servant

He then raises the point that I have not to this point ‘denied’ that the Pope “along with bishops and priests … are all perverts”.

So, first, since I have been asked, I do deny it.

Second, he then instantly retreats from that bit and tries to qualify it as their being “and at the very least, perverters of the truth”. And I would deny that too. Although – as I think would be clear – the Church’s doctrines are certainly obstructing ‘Dan’s personal truth (as revealed to him – “His chosen” – by (a, the, some, any, his) version of God.

And ‘Dan’ certainly retains an abiding interest in “perversion”.

The rest of his comment contains familiar bits already discussed in previous comments.

Glad to see you deny it now, that they, "bishops and priests…..are all perverts" or "at least perverters of truth". Sorry p, a late swing of the bat doesn't change the fact that they're "all perverts" or "at least perverters of the truth". Truth remains truth. Besides the game is already over, and your fake fans are all leaving the stadium, slowly but assuredly. servant

As I have said, sustaining the assessment of ‘Dan’s various eructations seem worthwhile to me because a) we get a chance to see in some depth just what types the Stampede drew to itself and b) most readers would probably not have the chance to observe the kinds of ‘issues’ that fundamentally drive various persons whom most readers would most likely not encounter (or would deliberately seek to avoid encountering) in the normal course of their lives.

Your right. Some catholics do avoid encountering me because they hate to hear the truth about their cult and I'm fine with that. Why is it necessary that they falsely accuse me to cause me hardship. I've never called the police on them for screaming obscenities or threatening me. Your cult is chalk full of evil, lying hypocrits. Decent catholics everywhere, run from this deceiving, evil church. Don't go down with them. servant

On the 6th at 543PM ‘Dan’ now theologizes that “no one is capable of ‘awarding himself the status of ‘His Chosen’”. He backs that up quickly by – as best can be inferred from the wording here – piously bleating that he isn’t capable of making such a self-award, either (…”nor am I”).

That sounds very nice, until we realize that in ‘Dan’s cartoon-verse, he has been “Chosen” and that you either have to accept his claim that God did it or you are “mocking God”.

It’s a neat psychic economy, but a self-serving construct nonetheless.

Were he claiming to be Napoleon or the one “Chosen” to carry on that personage’s work and words, and were he to make the same claim as he does in regard to his being the “Chosen” of God, then one might even more clearly grasp the whackness in his core gambit.

But now but now but now, in his comment of the 6th at 603PM we come to a point that is far more susceptible to demonstrable evidence available to all: Dan’s claim that I am ‘lying’ when I refer to his six stays in “mental institutions” as he himself reported that.

How – you might wonder – is he going to get himself out of this hole he has dug for himself?

First, he cawn’t quite seem to recall having posted the comment (or at least he cawn’t quite “find” it, although the date-time stamp was provided and he merely needed to scroll back in the article-threads to it).

Second, he will however – and, all things considered, amazingly – “take my word for it” that I have (yet again) accurately quoted his own comment of November 23rd, 2015, at 1219PM.

So far, so queasy. He won’t admit he wrote it, but he won’t (can’t, really) deny that he wrote it.

But – doncha see? – it was simply a case of his “mistakingly writing” (sic) the phrase “mental institution” (actually, he wrote he had been sent to such a facility six times).

Consider it if you will: here is someone who – if he is to be believed – mistakenly wrote that he had been in a “mental institution” (and had been sent to one six times). Readers may consider the credibility of this bit as they may. And they may further consider which is worse: that somebody wrote it about themselves or that somebody now claims that writing such a claim was just a ‘mistake’ and nothing more.

And he doth then “apologize” … because – doncha know? – he has “never been in a mental institution before”. (The acute reader may quickly ask ‘before what’ or ‘before when’?)

And how does he know he has never been in a mental institution before? Oh, that’s an easy one: because he went and looked at “google maps” and has realized or decided that he “has never been in any of the listed mental institutions” (“in California”, he says, or “anywhere else” … and did he Google such facilities throughout the whole world?).

Having thus – to his own satisfaction and in his own mind, anyway – disposed of any possible question as to his mental history and status or his credibility and truthiness, he then doth graciously allow as how he will remove that ‘lie’ (that I supposedly told about him) from his “list” of” lies” that he claims I have told about him.

And he huffs and bleats in self-exculpation that “we all make mistakes” (but surely not if we are directly inspired by (a, the, some, any, his) ‘god’ as one of that entity’s “Chosen”).

And if he can make such a howler of a ‘mistake’ in the matter of his own history (with which we must suppose he is rather largely acquainted) then how is any reader not to imagine that ‘Dan’ can make similar or worse howlers and ‘mistakes’ in his myriad other assertions and claims about Scripture and the Word, Thought, and Will of God?

And thus, in that regard, does he actually imagine that anyone can then credit his toss-off assertion that he doth “stand by everything else he said” in that quoted paragraph? Having, as it were, having written that he had seen a pink elephant riding a unicycle, does he then imagine that anyone will put that howler off to the side and credit anything else he said? (Yes, ‘Dan’ does imagine that … and apparently expects it.)

And he riffs a bit further.

But then, in conclusion, tries to salvage the situation for himself by ‘noticing’ that I am “stepping up the mocking in almost every post”. If I am, it’s simply because his mental status and credibility are now simply too obviously in question to take with a completely straight face.

On the 6th at 608PM the (self-styled) Servant and “Chosen” then descends into epithet. Does ‘Dan’ sense or realize any incongruity in this, in light of his certainty that he has ‘conformed himself to Christ’ as written in one of his selected pericopes? No, ‘Dan’ doesn’t – not at all.

Being unable to refute the problem of his trying to equate “substitute” with “the real McCoy”, he tries to create a more congenial ‘point’ upon which to stand. But it doesn’t erase his core error here, even though he works creatively to riff about “fake” and “false”.

On the 6th at 627PM he tries another scam to evade the complications for his position posed by the pericope about Christ naming Peter the rock upon which He would build His Church”: he claims that he simply cawn’t see the relevance of the Peter-rock pericope to his own stuff.

And while his subsequent (and familiar) claims about the Church not coming “close to having anything to do with Peter’s teachings or with God’s” are what they are and more of the same from him, yet the bit about the Church not having been “started” until “some 300 years later” surely is a howler of the first order.

Three hundred years later than … what, exactly?

And what point or event is supposed – in ‘Dan’s cartoon-verse – to have “started” the Church?

And what was there before that ‘starting point’?

Yes, I do “talk about incoherence”, and ‘Dan’s cartoonish material is rife with it.

Busy readers who want to get even an inkling of the work required in comprehending Scripture might want to dip a toe into the pool by looking at the Wiki entries for the first and second Petrine Letters.

And by the way, in order for your cult to claim it's existence back to Jesus Christ and Peter, then they would have to follow the teachings of that time. They wouldn't be greedy, lying, idol worshipping, pedophile hypocrits by any means. The Holy Roman Empire, became, with Constantine's invasion of Rome, the unholy roman catholic cult, with simular palaces, nude, disgusting sculptures, king's thrones, lust and gluttony, the same evil entity that invaded them. A bunch of unholy and unforgiven hypocrits and pigs. READ THE BIBLE

P.S. I've in detail described their failure to follow and obey the Word in previous posts.

And on the 6th at 639PM ‘Dan’ will sound a familiar note we have heard from other Abuseniks here: to his own “truth is truth” bleat, ‘Dan’ adds the bit about it being all over for the Church and he riffs on that for a bit. Frankly, from the quality of material he has produced here, I consider analogies a bit beyond him, and would consider some other source for his bit here.

Was watching EWTN's show, Grab Your Catechism's program on ccc 1749-1769, "The morality of human acts". In the study the priest mentioned the "sins of abortion, stealing, sex after the disco, birth control-gravely disordered, and lying in court as morally reprehensible. Strange that I've personally witnessed, sworn in the name of God, priests and nuns in vestments, pastors, cops and hypocrit laity, lie through their teeth as soon as they said, "So help me God." Are they asking God to help them lie? They showed no remorse for their false accusations, and got some sick pleasure out of trying to charge for the many crimes of their imagination.

The priest continued in saying in regard to sins, "omissions can be relevant" and lets "talk about our passions". "Passions are the reservoir for moral living." What I find so puzzling is the obvious "omission" in the program, of any mention of your hierarchies grave sins of pedophilia, child abuse or molestation. I also notice the popes and bishops have done everything possible to avoid the subject, unless cornered and their backs against the wall.

Does the church think we're all as stupid as their brainwashed, dumb sheep. Are we waiting for the United Nations or the courts to bring up the subject and then claim, "How sorry we are that we did these horrible crimes against victims and humanity."??? You surely are a sorry bunch, with your empty apologies. Servant of the Truth in God

We continue now with more of ‘Dan’s attempts to deal with his credibility (and perhaps even sanity) issues.

On the 6th at 1019PM he tries a distraction: I had left out that – he claims – a relative went to the pastor of the parish (that ran the school whose children he went after at the schoolyard fence) and the pastor told her – ‘Dan’ claims – that ‘Dan’ hadn’t really said anything “bad” or “obscene”.

I didn’t include that part because it’s not relevant to the point I was making about ‘Dan’s own claims as to “mental institutions” (which point remains substantively un-refuted, about which see more below).

But assessing his relative-pastor bit on its own merits, what have we got?

From a man with an admitted history of police and required mental-institution stays, we get an effort to simply get out from under the possibility of his having raised overt sexual material with the children whom, for no reason conceivably justifiable, he had chosen to harangue through the fence.

That’s as may be and I never asserted otherwise about that specific incident (although about his demonstrated tendency to operate from a child-like vision of “peewee” and “first grade” and “kindergarten” and so on, much remains in play).

But to repeat my point about the schoolyard fence incident: the very fact that any adult would choose to go after children in a schoolyard with any sort of discussion – let alone the ‘content’ of his “Chosen” sermonettes as we have seen them and delivered in the mode that we have seen them delivered here … that alone and in and of itself would raise serious questions.

And does any reader – especially those with grade-school age children – take issue with the actions of the staff in trying to get him away from them?

Publiar says, "possibility of his having raised overt sexual material with the children whom, for no reason conceivably justifiable, he had chosen to harangue through the fence." You are such a despicable, lying, troll, creep, hypocrit, who makes a dumb jackass look smart. At least the beast doesn't talk. Calling you a rat would be a compliment.

And he has now ‘seen’ his “mistake” … but it is merely a minor grammatical mistake that he notices. (Talk about not being able to see the forest through the trees, but – after all – he is trying to distract us from the real issues here.)

And what does he proffer in his defense? A nonsense bit about how he “must have been” taking prescription drugs “that [he] never was given”. And anyone who can make sense out of that – except as a nonsensical effort to distract readers (and probably himself) – is welcome to try.

And then that leads him to now completely denying any of the (six) jailings or ‘seeing a judge’ as well as the (six) required stays in mental institutions. How that is to be squared with his November 2015 comment, and how any presumption as to his credibility (and perhaps sanity) is to survive this latest effort here, is anybody’s guess. Readers may consider it all as they will.

It's obvious you have a serious reading comprehension problem. I never denied "(6) jailings" or "seeing a judge", but did deny stays in "mental institutions", because that was not true. I clearly was referring to the "schoolyard" separately from other false accusations and lies from your [oc]cult. It does not matter what consequences I had to suffer, BECAUSE ALL ACCUSATIONS THAT GOT ME IN THESE PREDICAMENTS, WERE ALL LIES FROM CHURCH HYPOCRITS, OF WHICH I FIND YOU TO BE ONE OF THE WORST LIARS. ARE YOU THAT BLIND THAT YOU JUST DON'T GET THAT FACT. IMBICILE!!!

Apparently imagining that in recent prior comments he has managed to both a) erase the consequences (and even the reality) of his prior admissions of November, 2015 and b) retain an aura of credibility and sanity, he now tries to use as further supporting evidence what is instead merely another instance of his claiming, asserting and story-telling.

Thus he tells us a story about watching a catechetical show on the EWTN network.

The show – doncha see? – reminded him of how he himself has “personally witnessed” the sins of the clergy and the Church because the show, by the most amazing coincidence, listed “lying in court” right up there as equally “morally reprehensible“ with “abortion, stealing, [and] sex after the disco”.

Put aside for a moment the prospect of this utterly remarkable and convenient (to his purposes) coincidence.

Put aside for a moment a listing of serious and hardly-rare sins that also includes something as exotic and infrequent as “lying in court”.

Now consider this: a man who i) has just denied on this thread the gravamen of documentary evidence (i.e. his own admission in comments he put up in November), and ii) has instead asserted in very recent comments above on this thread that he was never arrested and never in court before a judge and never committed by judicial order to a mental institution, now iii) claims that he has “personally witnessed” instances of clerics and also “cops” and “hypocrite laity” lying under oath and making “false accusations”.

According to publiar, "lying in court" is something "exotic and infrequent". Spoken and accepted by publyin's and habitual catholic liars, including but not limited to catholic hierarchy, everywhere. Your judgment day draws near. Keep up your good work. servant

Which could only have happened in court, and if the police were there as well as clerics, and other persons (“hypocrite laity”) as witnesses testifying “under oath”, then … ‘Dan’ appears by his own admission to have indeed been the subject of at least one court case.

Contrary to what he now claims.

But you’re not supposed to notice that, let alone focus on it.

You’re supposed to go with his preferred spin, i.e. that he was lied-against by liars under oath in open court.

After all, since admission into the Dan-verse requires subscription to the Dan-dogma that a) he is “Chosen” of God and that b) any suspicion that he is rather largely something else constitutes nothing less than “mocking God”, then there can be tolerated no other explanation for his misadventures than that he is constantly lied-about (even under oath) by clergy and police and “hypocrite laity”.

In other words, he isn’t crazy and perhaps in person a little scary when he’s on a roll; it’s just that so many people are i) congenital liars and b) out to get him.

One can only wonder what those persons testified-to that prompts ‘Dan’s bit about their trying to “charge [him] for the many crimes of their imagination”.

Obviously, they may well have “showed no remorse” since they had told the truth under oath. But, of course, that is a possibility precluded by the tenets of the Dan-dogma.

He then gets rather tendentious, apparently trying to blame the priest on the TV show for not taking up ‘Dan’s favorite topics.

And we see again – and from what we have recently seen in his comments, the clinical point of view becomes not only relevant but necessary here – his personal fixation upon “pedophilia, child abuse or molestation”.

All of which rather dubious yet revealing material of ‘Dan’s thus leads into his summation and here he again – as Abuseniks so often love to do – puffs up his pinfeathers to declaim, denounce and rhetorically inquire whether “the church thinks we’re all as stupid as their brainwashed, dumb sheep”.

While ‘Dan’ has – no doubt unintentionally – revealed that ‘stupidity’ may well be a relevant axis of assessment here, I would say that his material now reveals clearly that there are far more important axes of assessment relevant to his material.

Just how “stupid” and “brainwashed” a “sheep” one would have to be to subscribe to the dogmas of the Dan-verse is something readers may consider as they will.

And another batch of short comments from ‘Dan’ trying to do some spin and damage control (not an easy job at this point).

On the 7th at 547PM he acknowledges that there are those who “avoid encountering” him. We can see the Dan-dogma explanation: “they hate to hear the truth about their cult”. There is also the possibility that people simply find his very presence uncomfortable and even disturbing and threatening – as is often the case with the more florid instances of – let us say – notable unwell-ness.

But then he goes on with it, revealingly: why, he plaints, “is it necessary that they falsely accuse me”? And again we see the deranged psychic economy of the Dan-verse. It must be, he can only conclude, because they want to “cause [him] hardship”. The alternative possibility, of course, is that they aren’t falsely accusing him and they are seeking to have him put someplace where he can be given clinical attention.

In his recitation of what he has never done to ‘them’, we see as if through a mirror the action that ‘they’ must have taken in regard to his actions and words: calling the police “for screaming obscenities and threatening”. And one begins to very clearly form a picture of ‘Dan’s actions and words when he is free-range and on the hoof.

And are we then to imagine that such behavior did not take place at that schoolyard fence?

And is “screaming obscenities and threatening” any sort of credible indicator of being “conformed to Christ” and being the “Chosen” of … fill-in-the-blank … ?

On the 7th at 557PM he will now ‘withdraw’ “his apology” and insist (although given the grammatical lack of a subject for the verb, not really) “Never been in a ‘mental institution’ on this earth”. And given the material in various comments I posted today, readers may consider the veracity and reliability of that claim as they may.

On the 7th at 604PM he will now try to create some position I did not take in order to have any ground at all to stand on: I did not say that “Christians are perfect”; my entire position here has been that they are precisely not.

And again, this bit of his occurs in connection with his claim that it was merely a ‘mistake’ to use the term “mental institution”. But he didn’t simply (mistakenly?) write the phrase “mental institution”; rather, he made the completely formulated claims that he had been in one and that he had been in one “six” times.

Whatever we are dealing with here, it is most certainly not a mere slip of the hand in writing or mis-writing a single simple phrase.

And on the 7th at 609PM – in regard, readers may recall – to the questions I put to him concerning his claim that the Church was only “started” some “300 years” after the composition of the Petrine Letters – what do we get?

Oh – well – … he has “decided not to respond to the rest of [my] nonsense”, i.e. to those questions.

And, having pretty much demonstrated just what we’re dealing with here, he then tries to finesse this clear demonstration with a play on “rats” and how I am actually “closer to a mouse”.

And the whole thing then topped off – yet again – with those queasy references to “little” and “peewee”, which – given the increasing clarity his material provides as to his condition – continue to assume increasing relevance.

Here we get a potted, tuna-can version of history, which readers are advised to take with more than a grain or two of salt.

And – on top of avoiding the questions I had put to him to which he now “decides” not to respond – he commits another ignorant howler by referring to Constantine and “The Holy Roman Empire”, which was a political entity that did not come about until the Early Middle Ages, centuries after Constantine’s death (and lasted, readers may recall, until Napoleon abolished it in 1806).

And he concludes – as if it would somehow compensate for his general lack of knowledge – the instruction (scream caps omitted) to “read the Bible”. Which doesn’t seem to have done anything for his general knowledge at all.

And in his “P.S.”, he tries to recover a bit of his aura by mimicking competent assessment. He has – he declaims – “described their [whoever that may be, given the historical hash that he seems to think is his knowledge of things] failure to follow and obey the Word in previous posts”. And readers may certainly assess all of his stuff as they will.

I am very aware of the political entity called "The Holy Roman Empire" of the Middle Ages. I'm talking in regards to the pagan, idol worshipping, perverted, greedy, cruel belief system that existed before, during and after Christ. It was always a "Holy Roman Empire" that was hard to distinguish and separate from what morphed into the unholy roman catholic church. The pagan beliefs, idolatry and sexual lusts have not changed much to this day. Your cult has not followed Biblical principals from the start, and over the years, with their catechism, has become worse. I think the Roman Empire was just a hedonistic pagan belief system, where the catholic church has just added to that system a false belief in God, making their cult a pagan gathering of so-called religious, lying hypocrits. Read the Word and seek the truth. Open your eyes and look at it's history, you'll find evil incarnate. Nothing close or similar to the teachings or lifestyle of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. servant

I think it is sufficiently clear at this point a) that we are reaching the bottom of the barrel in the Dan-verse, as well as b) in any attribution of credibility to ‘Dan’s presentations and proffers here, as well as c) getting a clear vision of the types that were lured to the surface by the Stampede.

It remains only to be seen just how much further lack of credibility and integrity we are going to see demonstrated in his material.

Oh, and you represent the "credibility and integrity" of your wonderful church? You'll have to explain to us how lying, deceiving, excusing, mocking and enabling are attributes of "credibility and integrity". You are a perfect example, of a member of your cult of hypocrits.

Won a case against your lying cult of hypocrites the other day. Plaintiff side was led by a lying priest, a corrupt, lying, threatening, skinhead cop and a brainwashed, church groupie. Judge found no credible evidence of harassment. Finally an honest judge in a corrupt system. Prophesy arrived when I returned from court.

"I AM the one who will get you through the troubles in this world.

If they want to keep fighting against you, don't you realize, I AM with you in spirit.

I AM to be their judge.

I will be at your side to defend you and they will get everything they deserve in life.

You don't have to worry about being falsely accused.

I already know the truth, how they are unfair to a person.

They are going to see how unfair I will be to them on judgment day.

I also can see how unjust and how they lie about the truth.

Quit worrying how you should be handling them.

You don't have to stress over them, and I will make sure that they will not get away with anything.

We now get more bits from ‘Dan’ that certainly don’t work against my overall assessment of the 7th at 1142PM.

On the 8th at 909AM he quotes a point I made that was clear from his claim that his relative had elicted from the pastor that ‘Dan’ had not “raised overt sexual material” (he used the term “obscene”) with the children.

To which ‘Dan’ responds – had you been waitttingggg forrrr itttt? – merely with epithet.

On the 8th at 928AM he now says that he has “never denied” that he had been jailed six times nor that he had “seen a judge” (which, of course, means that he was arrested and then had to go before a judge).

He repeats now his denial of his own material from the November, 2015 comment and now claims he doth “deny stays in ‘mental institutions’ (which “stays” are what he claimed to have undergone – and six times – in his comment of November of 2015).

Clearly we have here somebody for whom factuality and actuality (and – why not? – truth) are not operative, whether because of intention or incapacity.

But at least we are now told that the ‘schoolyard incident’ was separate from the six jailings and stays in mental institutions he revealed in his November, 2015 comment.

And we then get – in scream caps and with exclamation points – merely the epithet that anyone who thinks otherwise (and – apparently – credits his November 2015 comment as accurate) is “blind” and such persons “just don’t get that fact”.

I would also remind him of his comment on this thread of the 7th at 313AM: he wrote in that comment that he “was never ‘convicted’ or ‘jailed’ or ‘saw a ‘judge’”. And readers may draw such conclusions as they may.

In his increasingly incoherent and self-contradictory efforts to extricate himself here, clearly ‘fact’ and ‘truth’ are becoming very fungible indeed. But actually, I think that in his case they have been very fungible from the get-go.

He now claims that he is “very aware” of The Holy Roman Empire as being a medieval political entity. But – doncha see? – in using that specific historical tem he had been actually thinking of something else.

And he now further demonstrates the plasticity and fungibility of any ‘facts’ or ‘truth’ in the Dan-verse by assigning – on his own authority – the term “Holy Roman Empire” to something else more congenial to his rants and riffs here.

And that simply lubricates his further riffs and rants in the remainder of the comment.

And on the 8th at 1100AM he will try to deploy the familiar Abusenik I’m Not/You Are gambit: dodging the now clear and serious questions as to his own “credibility and integrity” that have arisen from his self-contradictory and incoherent claims, he simply tries to change the subject.

Thus he shouldn’t be held to a higher standard than the Church. Which – had you been waitttingggg forrr itttt? – is “lying, deceiving, excusing, mocking and enabling”.

He opens, curiously but conveniently, with a subject-less verb (who “won”? – ‘Dan’?).

We have no reference and thus don’t know a) to what case he refers or b) whether his ‘report’ on the case is accurate.

But on the basis of this pile, he will then unload a pile of what are now doubt the key 3x5s on which he relies for consolation and to avoid the uncongenial realities inherent in the Dan-verse.

He even puts in quotation marks this passel of chummy (and for him, convenient and self-exculpatory) consolations he has cooked up for himself (or – if you wish – has received in his god-grams).

And then – but of course – tries to bolster this smarmy bit of (divine?) enabling with the bossy and brassy “Thus saith the Lord”. No, thus ‘Dan’ is trying to make a silk purse out of something that is actually quite something else.

You can wish this was from 'Dan' and not from the Almighty. "Indeed, the very hairs on your head are all numbered." Luke 12:7 You think you'll get away with your vicious lies and manipulations, let alone your mocking of the Lord's Word, and the power of His Holy Spirit.

"I will be at your side to defend you and they will get everything they deserve in life."

On the 8th at 320PM JR attempts to rescue ‘Dan’ – much in the manner of a rodeo clown scampering out to get the fallen rider out of a tight spot.

And ‘Dan’ is surely in a tight spot (about which see more below).

But JR’s not much of a rodeo clown. The best he can do is repeat ‘Dan’s bit about “lies”, although he proffers on example of any such “lie”. But – of course – in the Abusenik-verse, anything they don’t like is by definition a “lie”.

Meanwhile, ‘Dan’ (the 8th at 525PM) will simply ignore the serious problems with his claims and quotes and so forth and … what?

Try to wrap himself in the aura of God Himself, as usual.

And from that cartoon-bubble, will simply toss out unsupported epithetical accusations as to “vicious lies and manipulation” (another deployment of the familiar and juvenile Abusenik I’m Not/You Are gambit).

Although I don’t recall any Biblical pericopes that state any of the bits ‘Dan’ here puts in quotation marks.

But perhaps they are quotations not from Scripture but merely from his collection of god-grams.

Still, that “Thus saith the Lord” does remind us that ‘Dan’ seems to consider his own material to be the very Word and Thought and Will of God.

Ooooh, he says for all practical purposes, wait til my goddy gets here and then you’ll be sorry oooh yeah you will. We are indeed at the bottom of a shallow and damaged barrel.

Could it just be, most likely that Jim and many others recognize you as a habitual liar, although you have a problem facing that truth yourself. And I'm not ignoring any problems with my claims or quotes. Just ignoring you, because I'm fed up with explaining the truth to you, just so you can lie, manipulate and twist it to your sick fantasies. Prophesy is new truth from the Lord, that isn't necessarily the same as Scripture but can not go against the Word and God's Truth. So keep on mocking God and His Holy Spirit and we'll see how that works for you. You are a little, lying peewee, who thinks your bigger and tougher than God. Talk about a Napoleon complex. Since you have a problem with reading comp., I'll give you these lines again. You may have a serious eye problem.

"I AM to be their Judge."

"You don't have to worry about being falsely accused."

"They are going to see how unfair I will be to them on judgment day."

"I also can see how unjust and how they lie about the truth."

Thus saith the Lord

Wish I could take credit for writing this. Apparently the Almighty has your number, 666. Best to you, mocker and perverter of truth. servant of the Lord

On the 9th at 1104AM ‘Dan’ will once more try to get himself out from under the problem of credibility and integrity (and perhaps sanity) that he has created for himself with his many conflicting and mutually-contradictory claims about his various misadventures with the police and the courts and the psychiatric profession.

This time he borrows a ‘Dennis Ecker’ gambit and goes for insinuation: is it perhaps really the problem that “Jim and so many others recognize you as a habitual liar”? (italics mine)

That might seem a seriously odd stretch, given all of the problems with his own material.

And “so many others” … ? Referring to some of the Abuseniks, no doubt.

But – he quickly claims – he’s “not ignoring any problems with [his] claims or quotes”.

But then he quickly does precisely that – ignores them – and plows on with his scheduled insinuation gambit.

And then tries this bit of self-exculpation: he’s not ignoring all the problems with his own material (and its ramifications for his credibility, integrity, and perhaps sanity). Nooo. Rather – doncha see? – he is simply “ignoring [me”. Which is about as pretty an example of a distinction-without-a-difference as one is likely to see.

And why is he “ignoring” me (and my questions as to the problems with his conflicting claims)?

“Because [he] is fed up with explaining the truth to [me]”. And which “truth” would that be? How are we to determine that, given the incoherent and mutually-contradictory claims he has made? He proffers on solution to that profound problem.

He will then engage in a bit of theologizing: “Prophesy [confusing the noun and the verb forms of that term here] is new truth from the Lord”. Thus, we are apparently to believe, what ‘Dan’ passes on is “new truth” (that only he, apparently, has received in his god-grams).

But there is a method in the madness here: his own material – doncha see? – can be put in quotation marks (thus: as if the direct Word of God) because such “new prophecy” (using the proper form of the term here) “isn’t necessarily the same as Scripture”. Thus that ‘Dan’s stuff is not necessarily actually Scriptural, but it has the same weight and validity and authority as Scripture.

As I said, we are reaching the bottom of a shallow but much-damaged barrel with all this stuff.

We then get, again, revenants of the child’s world that seems to so preoccupy him: I, apparently, am some sort of bully who “thinks your bigger and tougher than God” (sic).

No, I am a questioner who can see some very abyssal problems with ‘Dan’s stuff – which isn’t the same thing at all (except in ‘Dan’s cartoon-verse imaginings).

Then more of the queasy “peewee” stuff, delivered as epithet.

And he tries to burnish his performance here by repeating his stuff in quotation marks – which, of course , we are to take as being the Word, Thought and Will of God. Ovvvvvvvvv coursssssssse.

And then concludes by demurely acknowledging that he cannot take credit for these ‘quoted’ bits because – doncha see? – they indicate that “apparently the Almighty” is on to me (let’s just leave the tell-tale “666” bit to stay right up there where it was put).

P, Every post you place is a lie. Everything you write was created to deceive; to insult and to injure those all ready harmed.

That's some career for a grown up.

Your church is being destroyed, not from some imagined outside attack; but by you and your pretense that there is such an attack. Catholics don't feel they are really being attacked for something they didn't do. You and TMR and Tom Doyle and SNAP have created this attack. You've imagined it. Not by accident but on purpose. You invented this "attack" construct as the excuse for your attacking your own raped children and turning our real victimhood on it's head by declaring that the real victims are the church and it's rapists. Quite the miracle there!

SEARCH

FAST FACTS

Sign up for TheMediaReport.com Newsletter

Yes, I would like to receive regular updates regarding new stories and articles.

Email Address*

First Name

* = required field

BOOKS

Double Standard: Abuse Scandals andthe Attack on the Catholic Church
by David F. Pierre, Jr.